The final verdict in the Ahmed Ghailani trial was a major blow to federal prosecutors, who were hoping to make this case an example for future terrorism trials.

Ghailani was acquitted of all but one of 280 charges for his involvement in the deaths and destruction on two US embassies in Africa in 1998.This follows the judge’s orders to throw out evidence deemed inadmissible in court because it was obtained through the use of illegal torture.

Upon sentencing, he will face a minimum of 20 years in prison, with a possibility of life in prison without parole for the one count of conspiracy to destroy US property.

Many are afraid that the Obama administration will decide not to bring other terrorism cases before civilian federal courts. Some however are arguing the verdict in the case makes the case for trying terrorism cases in US federal courts.

Daphne Eviatar, a senior associate with the organization Human Rights First said the outcome of the Ahmed Ghailani trial is a perfect example of utilizing federal civilian courts to try terrorism suspects successfully.

“We had a fair trial and we have a fair verdict, “said Eviatar. “It should in a way satisfy everybody because we had a fair trial and can be proud of that on the world state and at the same time we convicted this person who people were worried about because of his terrorist connections and he’s going to spend the rest of his life behind bars.”

Critics of the system and the trial are simply looking for a way to criticize the Obama administration and gain political points, she argued. Although he was acquitted on some changes, he was still found guilty of others.

“It’s a victory for the administration and this man is going to spend the rest of his life behind bars,” she added.